Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Reed, and others as an original co-sponsor of this important legislation, which would clarify the intent of a provision in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations law regarding the Section 8 housing voucher program. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, has claimed that language in the FY2004 appropriations law requires it to distribute voucher funding in a manner that leaves no alternative but to reduce assistance by $191 million nationwide. Subsequently, it issued a notice on April 22, 2004 that put in place a new system for funding Section 8 vouchers that differed greatly from its usual practice. In the past, HUD would reimburse housing authorities for the cost of providing housing to low-income individuals based on their real, current costs. Under the April 22 guidelines, however, the reimbursements will be gauged to August 1, 2003, plus a small adjustment for inflation. In addition, the change will be retroactive to January 1, 2004, which will create even further confusion for those public housing authorities whose vouchers are already issued and whose budget are already finalized. I strongly believe that that HUD's interpretation of the FY2004 appropriations law is both unduly restrictive and is in sharp contradiction to the intent of Congress to fully fund Section 8 program. Despite HUD's protestations that Congress forced its hand to make these cuts, Congress in fact added funding to the Section 8 program in FY2004 so that HUD could fully fund all vouchers currently in use. Congress appropriated $17.6 billion in FY2004 to renew expiring Section 8 contracts, or $1.4 billion above the amount requested by the administration. Although the FY2004 appropriations law did make some modest changes in how voucher funding is disbursed, nothing in the law mandated that HUD take the unprecedented step of cutting housing assistance for senior citizens, the disabled, and working families and individuals with the greatest housing needs. It therefore makes little sense that HUD would insist on reading the FY2004 appropriations law in such a way as to produce more homelessness across the nation. My own State of Connecticut will be especially hurt if HUD's April 22 notice is not changed to reflect the program commitments of housing authorities. Many public housing authorities in Connecticut are anticipating that the HUD proposal will result in a significant reduction in funds needed to honor existing contracts as well as effectively administer the voucher program. The current average Housing Assistance Payment for many agencies has typically increased beyond the August 1, 2003 ``benchmark'' plus the Annual Adjustment Factor. In most cases, this result is not due to increases in local rental rates but reflects the rise in unemployment among Section 8 participants and thus an increase in the public housing authority's share of the rent. The impact of the April 22, 2004 rule on Connecticut will be particularly severe given that that it has the sixth most expensive rental housing market in the nation and very few vacancies to meet the needs of low-income individuals. Coupled with the administration's proposed FY2005 budget cuts and block granting of the Section 8 program, which could adversely affect over 4,000 existing voucher holders in Connecticut, it is difficult to understand why HUD would be trying to balance its budget on the backs of low-income Americans. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's April 22, 2004 notice is therefore just another salvo in the administration's war on the Section 8 program. Section 8 provides more than just rent assistance for low and moderate wage individuals in high cost housing markets. It also helps to sustain the employee base in urban markets, keeps wages for jobs in the service and manufacturing sectors competitive, enables corporations to remain and expand in their communities, and reduces the strain on vehicular transportation systems. In an economy that is creating few jobs and producing scant affordable housing, HUD should be pursing policies to ensure that no family in America loses its housing assistance. HUD's April 22 notice should therefore be changed, so I urge my colleagues to support this urgent legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Bingaman, Clinton, Sarbanes, Reid, Akaka, Johnson, Stabenow, Corzine, Lautenberg and Durbin to introduce the ``Student Bill of Rights.'' This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of America's promise of equal opportunity for all. The Student Bill of Rights attempts to ensure that every American child has an equal opportunity to receive a good education--including, highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology--to all students in all schools in a State. Current law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure that States comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the fairness of their public school systems. Fifty years ago, Brown vs. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Fifty years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist in fact. Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, our education system remains largely separate and unequal. All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy. Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education. This bill does not represent a radical notion. Last Congress, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation that Mr. Fattah offered in the other body and I offered here in the Senate. A radical notion is the idea that a country founded on the principle of equal opportunity for all can continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational opportunity for just a select few. When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago, President Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. This year alone, the President's budget resolution underfunds the law by $9.4 billion. The President's budget also fails to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special education--leaving families and local communities struggling to make up the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced to make do with far less than other students. The Federal Government needs to become a more equal partner in funding education. States need to do more, too. At the federal level we have created programs to help ensure that students from low-income communities start school healthy and ready to learn and to succeed in school once they get there. Programs such as Head Start, the School Lunch Program, The Children's Health Insurance Program and Title I, all assist in meeting the needs of low-income kids from their very first days. In the end, this bill is about the simple fact that the quality of a child's education should not be determined by their zip code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kennedy, Reed, Bingaman, Clinton, Sarbanes, Reid, Akaka, Johnson, Stabenow, Corzine, Lautenberg and Durbin to introduce the ``Student Bill of Rights.'' This bill is critical to ensuring that every child in America receives the educational opportunity that is the foundation of America's promise of equal opportunity for all. The Student Bill of Rights attempts to ensure that every American child has an equal opportunity to receive a good education--including, highly qualified teachers, challenging curricula, small classes, current textbooks, quality libraries, and up-to-date technology--to all students in all schools in a State. Current law requires that schools within the same district provide comparable educational services. This bill would extend that basic protection to the State level by requiring comparability across school districts. And, this bill would help ensure that States comply with State or Federal court orders concerning the fairness of their public school systems. Fifty years ago, Brown vs. Board of Education struck down segregation in law. Fifty years later, we know that just because there is no segregation in law does not mean that it does not persist in fact. Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, our education system remains largely separate and unequal. All too often, whether an American child is taught by a high quality teacher in a small class, has access to the best courses and instructional materials, goes to school in a new, modern building, and otherwise benefits from educational resources that have been shown to be essential to a quality education, still depends on where the child's family can afford to live. In fact, the United States ranks last among developed countries in the difference in the quality of schools available to wealthy and low-income children. This is simply unacceptable, and it is why the Student Bill of Rights is so important to our children's ability to achieve academically, to gain the skills they need to be responsible, participating citizens in our diverse democracy, and to compete and succeed in the global economy. Of course, factors besides resources are also important to academic achievement--supportive parents, motivated peers, and positive role models in the community, just to name a few. But at the same time, we also know that adequate resources are vital to providing students with the opportunity to receive a solid education. This bill does not represent a radical notion. Last Congress, 42 Senators and 183 Representatives voted for similar legislation that Mr. Fattah offered in the other body and I offered here in the Senate. A radical notion is the idea that a country founded on the principle of equal opportunity for all can continue to accept an educational system that provides real educational opportunity for just a select few. When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago, President Bush promised that the Federal Government would make sure schools have the resources necessary to meet the new law's requirements. This year alone, the President's budget resolution underfunds the law by $9.4 billion. The President's budget also fails to fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to special education--leaving families and local communities struggling to make up the difference. We will never close the achievement gap as long as our nation's most disadvantaged students in the neediest schools are forced to make do with far less than other students. The Federal Government needs to become a more equal partner in funding education. States need to do more, too. At the federal level we have created programs to help ensure that students from low-income communities start school healthy and ready to learn and to succeed in school once they get there. Programs such as Head Start, the School Lunch Program, The Children's Health Insurance Program and Title I, all assist in meeting the needs of low-income kids from their very first days. In the end, this bill is about the simple fact that the quality of a child's education should not be determined by their zip code. The Student Bill of Rights will help ensure that each and every child's school has the resources to provide them with a decent education, and in turn, an equal opportunity for a successful future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Bill of Rights, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA. I want to start by thanking my fellow committee members and their staff for all of their hard work in putting together the bipartisan legislation we are considering today. While we may still have some disagreements about the bill, getting to this point in a bipartisan way is no small achievement, and I know we are all better for it. Today, nothing pleases me more than to introduce, with my many of my colleagues, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. This bill will ensure that students with disabilities get the services they are entitled to while providing school systems with a greater degree of flexibility in implementing the law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003 emphasizes accountability and improved results, improves monitoring and enforcement of the law, and works to reduce litigation by providing new opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns and disputes. The bill reduces paperwork by streamlining State and local paperwork requirements and clarifying that no information is required in an individualized education plan--IEP--beyond what Federal law requires. Like No Child Left Behind, this bill increases and improves opportunities for parental involvement and supports teachers in becoming ``highly qualified'' to do their jobs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act provides earlier access to services and supports for infants, toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities. It also properly puts added emphasis on transition services so that special education students leave the system ready to be full productive citizens, whether they choose to go on to college or a job. These are the things that the Senate bill does. Sadly, there is one glaring provision missing. This bill does not contain a provision to provide mandatory full-funding of IDEA; A provision that my colleagues Senator Harkin and Hagel tried to get incorporated into the bill yesterday. Almost 30 years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to help States provide all children with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible. Since that time, this law has made an incredible difference in the lives of millions of American children and their families. When we passed the law, we not only promised to bring special education students into the regular school system, we made a commitment to cover 40 percent of the State cost of servicing students with special needs over time. Thirty years later, we have yet to make good on this commitment. Today the Federal Government supports just over 18 percent of the cost of the program. That is not even half of the 40 percent we promised 29 years ago. In order to rectify this situation, Senators Harkin and Hagel put together an amendment mandating full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This amendment failed yesterday 56-41. This saddens and frustrates me. Had it passed, I believe this amendment would have proven to have been the most important provision in this bill. States and municipalities are bearing more than their share of responsibility for meeting disabled students' needs. In Connecticut, the State typically covers 32 percent of the costs of special education, local school districts cover 61 percent of the costs of special education, and the Federal Government covers only 7 percent. Certainly States and municipalities are paying more than their share of special education costs. They need our help. Senator Harkin's and Hagel's amendment provided an opportunity to give them the help that they need. Only mandatory full-funding of IDEA would demonstrate this body's commitment to universal access to education for all children, while helping entire communities ease their tax burden. As I have said before, I cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering, or we are a Nation at war, we cannot provide our children and their families with the critical educational resources they need. Investment in education is no less important in a weak economy or while our Nation is at war. Education needs to be viewed as a national priority. In fact, education is the key to a healthy democracy, and absolutely essential to our long-term national and economic security. Like Senators Harkin and Hagel, I support the idea of mandatory full- funding because it is good for students, families, schools, municipalities, states and the average American taxpayer. The funding fight on IDEA has been a long one over the years and I believe that schools have already waited to long. Fundamentally, this is a good bill--one that will help guarantee the full potential of all our children while assisting school districts in their efforts to deliver special education services in an efficient manner. That is why I will support the underlying bill. Thank you.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine and 34 co- sponsors to introduce the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will revitalize the FIRE Act grant program for an additional six years. Senator DeWine and I authored the original FIRE Act four years ago. It has been a tremendous success, helping fire departments throughout our Nation purchase firefighting equipment as well as train firefighters. Nationwide, nearly $2 billion has been appropriated for FIRE Act grants throughout the country. A report last year by the Federal Government found that 99 percent of grant recipients were satisfied with the FIRE Act's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that it had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the Nation.'' The FIRE Act grant initiative is truly a success story. It is important to remember that the defenders of our Nation are not dressed only in combat fatigues. They wear firefighter uniforms. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and we all appreciate their efforts greatly. The fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. As a country, we are fortunate to have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequipped to deal with many emergencies that may arise. According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. A June 2003 Council of Foreign Relations report authored by former Senator Warren Rudman further underscored this issue when it concluded that ``if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.'' The responsibilities of America's firefighters have also changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch form the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished. Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are obeyed. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and chemical threats. The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time. According to the aforementioned U.S. Fire Service's 2002 national Needs Assessment study, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large- scale emergencies. The study found that: Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue at a collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope. Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation. An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities. Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire. These statistics are startling. The threats to which firefighters are expected to respond have far outgrown the ability of local governments to equip firefighters to do what these dangerous times require them to do. This situation demands continued action by the Senate to address these concerns, which is why Senator DeWine and I are introducing this legislation to further strengthen the FIRE Act grant initiative for the future. Our bill builds on the recommendations given to us last February by the paid and volunteer fire services. First, we are authorizing $5.85 billion over the next six years for FIRE Act grant assistance. This amount represents a substantial increase over current law. Second, we are both increasing the size of the awards and making the grants more equitable. Presently, the maximum amount of an award is $750,000, regardless of the size and type of department. For a large department, this cap has caused some difficulties because departments in smaller communities get a substantially larger share of the funds per capita. Our legislation will increase the size of the awards for large jurisdictions to $2.25 million, a threefold increase. For jurisdictions between 500,000 and one million people, the cap will be $1.5 million. For jurisdictions less than 500,000, the maximum award will be $1 million. The bill also empowers the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive these caps in instances of extraordinary need. Third, we have restructured the matching requirements of current law. We have heard from the fire services that the current matching requirement imposed on local jurisdictions in many instances exceeds the funds available in their budgets. Our bill will reduce the non- Federal matching requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent for departments serving populations of more than 50,000 people. It will also cut the match by one-third for departments serving communities between 20,000 and 50,000 people, and by one-half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents. Finally, we have enhanced the fire safety and fire prevention programs under the FIRE Act, and we have made volunteer, non-profit emergency medical service (EMS) providers that serve municipalities with separate fire and EMS departments eligible for FIRE Act grants. In addition, we tackle the leading cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks--by creating an incentive for fire departments to acquire life-saving automated external defibrillator equipment for every first-due emergency vehicle. These are some of the provisions in the legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing. We look forward to working constructively with the other body in the coming months to fashion legislation that the entire fire service can support. I am concerned, however, about a provision in the House bill that would seem to disadvantage paid fire departments over volunteer fire departments. This provision would prohibit a paid fire department from receiving FIRE Act assistance if it includes in its collective bargaining agreement a clause prohibiting its firefighters from serving as volunteer firefighters in another jurisdiction. This provision would needlessly put Congress in the awkward position of dictating to local fire departments not only how to manage themselves, but what issues they can and cannot bargain over in their contract. The consequences of such a provision would be far-reaching. In fact, I am unaware of any other Federal grant initiative that imposes a limitation of such as this on collective agreements. Of course, there are larger issues also at stake--namely, the fact that the Federal government does not provide for firefighters to bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it exists because firefighters have won the right at the state or local level. In fact, I have strongly supported separate legislation currently pending before Congress that would grant each and every firefighter the right to discuss workplace issues with their employer. It would therefore be inconsistent if firefighters are told what issues over which they can or cannot bargain at the same time that it is the current policy of the Federal Government that it is up to the states whether they can bargain in the first place. How can collective bargaining rights be restricted when they are not even granted? The legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing does not include the House provision, because we are committed to ensuring that all firefighters are treated fairly, and have an equal opportunity to obtain the assistance they need to do their jobs safely. In closing, it is important to recall the vital role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765. Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who died in the line of duty on that tragic day made our Nation proud. We will never allow their noble sacrifice to be forgotten. On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know they have a duty to fulfill. The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well, and to the citizens of our Nation who need the protection of the fire service. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to ensure that this important bipartisan homeland security legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine and 34 co- sponsors to introduce the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will revitalize the FIRE Act grant program for an additional six years. Senator DeWine and I authored the original FIRE Act four years ago. It has been a tremendous success, helping fire departments throughout our Nation purchase firefighting equipment as well as train firefighters. Nationwide, nearly $2 billion has been appropriated for FIRE Act grants throughout the country. A report last year by the Federal Government found that 99 percent of grant recipients were satisfied with the FIRE Act's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that it had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the Nation.'' The FIRE Act grant initiative is truly a success story. It is important to remember that the defenders of our Nation are not dressed only in combat fatigues. They wear firefighter uniforms. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and we all appreciate their efforts greatly. The fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. As a country, we are fortunate to have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequipped to deal with many emergencies that may arise. According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. A June 2003 Council of Foreign Relations report authored by former Senator Warren Rudman further underscored this issue when it concluded that ``if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could have an even more devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.'' The responsibilities of America's firefighters have also changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch form the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished. Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are obeyed. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and chemical threats. The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time. According to the aforementioned U.S. Fire Service's 2002 national Needs Assessment study, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large- scale emergencies. The study found that: Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue at a collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope. Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation. An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities. Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire. These statistics are startling. The threats to which firefighters are expected to respond have far outgrown the ability of local governments to equip firefighters to do what these dangerous times require them to do. This situation demands continued action by the Senate to address these concerns, which is why Senator DeWine and I are introducing this legislation to further strengthen the FIRE Act grant initiative for the future. Our bill builds on the recommendations given to us last February by the paid and volunteer fire services. First, we are authorizing $5.85 billion over the next six years for FIRE Act grant assistance. This amount represents a substantial increase over current law. Second, we are both increasing the size of the awards and making the grants more equitable. Presently, the maximum amount of an award is $750,000, regardless of the size and type of department. For a large department, this cap has caused some difficulties because departments in smaller communities get a substantially larger share of the funds per capita. Our legislation will increase the size of the awards for large jurisdictions to $2.25 million, a threefold increase. For jurisdictions between 500,000 and one million people, the cap will be $1.5 million. For jurisdictions less than 500,000, the maximum award will be $1 million. The bill also empowers the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive these caps in instances of extraordinary need. Third, we have restructured the matching requirements of current law. We have heard from the fire services that the current matching requirement imposed on local jurisdictions in many instances exceeds the funds available in their budgets. Our bill will reduce the non- Federal matching requirement from 30 percent to 20 percent for departments serving populations of more than 50,000 people. It will also cut the match by one-third for departments serving communities between 20,000 and 50,000 people, and by one-half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents. Finally, we have enhanced the fire safety and fire prevention programs under the FIRE Act, and we have made volunteer, non-profit emergency medical service (EMS) providers that serve municipalities with separate fire and EMS departments eligible for FIRE Act grants. In addition, we tackle the leading cause of firefighter death in the line of duty--heart attacks--by creating an incentive for fire departments to acquire life-saving automated external defibrillator equipment for every first-due emergency vehicle. These are some of the provisions in the legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing. We look forward to working constructively with the other body in the coming months to fashion legislation that the entire fire service can support. I am concerned, however, about a provision in the House bill that would seem to disadvantage paid fire departments over volunteer fire departments. This provision would prohibit a paid fire department from receiving FIRE Act assistance if it includes in its collective bargaining agreement a clause prohibiting its firefighters from serving as volunteer firefighters in another jurisdiction. This provision would needlessly put Congress in the awkward position of dictating to local fire departments not only how to manage themselves, but what issues they can and cannot bargain over in their contract. The consequences of such a provision would be far-reaching. In fact, I am unaware of any other Federal grant initiative that imposes a limitation of such as this on collective agreements. Of course, there are larger issues also at stake--namely, the fact that the Federal government does not provide for firefighters to bargain collectively. Where bargaining does occur, it exists because firefighters have won the right at the state or local level. In fact, I have strongly supported separate legislation currently pending before Congress that would grant each and every firefighter the right to discuss workplace issues with their employer. It would therefore be inconsistent if firefighters are told what issues over which they can or cannot bargain at the same time that it is the current policy of the Federal Government that it is up to the states whether they can bargain in the first place. How can collective bargaining rights be restricted when they are not even granted? The legislation that Senator DeWine and I are introducing does not include the House provision, because we are committed to ensuring that all firefighters are treated fairly, and have an equal opportunity to obtain the assistance they need to do their jobs safely. In closing, it is important to recall the vital role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765. Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who died in the line of duty on that tragic day made our Nation proud. We will never allow their noble sacrifice to be forgotten. On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know they have a duty to fulfill. The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well, and to the citizens of our Nation who need the protection of the fire service. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months to ensure that this important bipartisan homeland security legislation is enacted into law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would also like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an article from today's Washington Post. It was on page A-3 carried over to page A-6, and it worries me deeply because it goes to what I am fearful may have had some underlying and undercurrent effect on the events of the last several days. It seems to speak to the extent that we are dehumanizing and minimizing and casting this pall of accusation over an entire religious group in the world. Senator Biden pointed out in his remarks here this morning that 1.2 billion people are observers of the Muslim faith. And today is a national day of prayer in the U.S. It began with a resolution adopted in the Truman administration in 1952 and has been followed every year since then. When Harry Truman signed the congressional resolution he called for ``a suitable day each year other than a Sunday to be set aside for common prayer.'' Every administration since 1952 has taken that day out of the calendar year to focus on common prayer. And it was under the Reagan administration that the first Thursday of May was set aside as the permanent day each year. I cannot tell you how disturbing it was to read in this morning's paper a quote from one of the organizers of this year's day of prayer. The quote was buried away, but let me read it, because it actually goes to the heart of what we are talking about. We are told here, this morning, that they would make ``no apologies'' in today's celebration of prayer ``about the exclusion of Muslims and others outside of the `Judeo-Christian tradition' from ceremonies planned by the task force on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the country.'' ``They are free to have their own national day of prayer if they want to,'' she said. Well, if you have that attitude about common prayer today, and you exclude religious groups from a national day of prayer, then what have we come to? I might point out as well, because the Presiding Officer will appreciate this--my wife pointed this out to me this morning--in Salt Lake City, Mormons have complained that they are not allowed to lead prayers during today's observance. I don't know how you have a national prayer day in Salt Lake City and exclude the Mormons from participating. But this sort of attitude where we are going to selectively choose religious groups that can be involved, and the particular reference here to the exclusion of anyone who might be of the Muslim faith, is troubling to me because it is that sort of an attitude that contributes to the dehumanization of people and casts aspersions on an entire group of people. Indeed, as we talk about what has occurred as a result of the actions of a few bad apples, I point out the story in today's newspaper because I think that the attitude of exclusion expressed in the story contributes to an environment, if you will, that somehow makes these abuses permissible in the minds of some--that somehow these people are undeserving of the kind of treatment that every other human ought to receive--particularly in the hands of a nation that prides itself on being governed by the rule of law and which respects individual rights. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article in today's Washington Post entitled ``Bush to Appear On Christian TV For Prayer Day'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from Iowa for his effort on the overtime pay issue. Clearly, he has attracted the attention of the administration and others. We in Congress have, on two recent occasions rejected the administration's proposals that would modify the overtime rules crafted back, as the Senator from Wyoming pointed out, in the 1930s, with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Over the years, we have changed the Fair Labor Standards Act when it comes to overtime. Those changes have historically expanded how overtime could be used or under what job categories it could be used. There has not been a single instance in the nearly 70 years since the act was written where there has been a constriction of the overtime provisions. This is a historic moment. The Senate will vote in 30 minutes as to whether this Congress will, for the first time since the 1930s, limit the ability of people who work to collect overtime in more than 800 job categories. The Senator from New Hampshire said we apologize, we are going to take 55 job categories and we are going to exclude them from being adversely affected by the rules when it comes to overtime. As my colleague pointed out, in fact there were some 889 different job categories that could be affected by this rule. Clearly, what we are talking about is restricting the ability of people who work more than a 40-hour week to be able to collect overtime pay. For people who do collect overtime pay, that money amounts to 25 percent of the income they take home. Who are we talking about? Clerical workers, nursery school teachers, cooks, and nurses to name but a few. These are the people who depend upon overtime pay in order to make ends meet. You don't have to have a Ph.D in economics to know what is going on with families and their incomes today and their abilities to make ends meet. It was reported a few years ago how much of the income families earn can be put aside for savings, or that they could apply to college tuition for their children in the future. Today we know the ability of the middle-income family to save, put money aside, and purchase necessary items for their families has been severely restricted. This is yet one further attempt to make it more difficult for these families who need the extra overtime pay to make ends meet. People who are stripped of these overtime protections would end up working longer hours for less pay. Does anybody believe this administration's Department of Labor is trying to expand overtime pay? That is not why the business community is supporting this rule change, because they want to expand overtime pay. The administration clearly wants to restrict it and redefine job categories that will allow them to do so. Also, I suggest the rule works adversely in terms of job creation. The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted nearly 70 years ago to create a 40-hour workweek and require that workers be paid fairly for any extra hours. Especially in times like these, it is an incentive for job creation because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead of forcing current employees to work longer hours. So it creates jobs. Obviously, if you don't have to pay overtime, you can get that one person to work longer hours for less pay. We should be trying to create jobs in this country--instead, we have lost nearly 3 million in the last 39 months; in fact, some 8 to 10 million people are out of work in this country. Further, this is vitally important to the 40-hour workweek. If employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they will have incentive to demand longer hours, and workers will have less time to spend with their families. People already know how difficult it is to balance work and family. Many single parents raising children, or two income earners are holding more than one job to meet the family's financial obligations. This is a very important issue to working families and it is important for them to know this Congress will stand up for them on something as basic as the ability for them to earn overtime pay when they put in the extra hours. I also want to add that the job classifications being proposed by my friend from New Hampshire in his amendment are too vague and will invite litigation. My friend from Wyoming pointed out we ought to be trying to discourage litigation. I agree. But the adoption of the Gregg amendment, without the Harkin amendment, seems to do nothing but open up that door to litigation. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment and send a final message to the administration: Do not mess around with overtime pay. This Congress is going to stand up for workers' rights to get it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, and over the weekend, more than 1,200 students from across the United States came to Washington to take part in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution,'' the most extensive educational program in the country developed to educate our youth about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education through the No Child Left behind Act, passed into law just 2 years ago. I am proud to announce that a group of students from Trumbull, CT are in our Nation's Capital to represent my home State in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to Washington and compete at the national level. Modeled after hearings in Congress, the ``We the People National Finals Competition'' gives students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights before a panel of adult judges. Students evaluate, take and defend constitutional positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues, and are subject to a barrage of questions designed to further probe their depth of understanding as it relates to our ``founding documents.'' Last year, Russell Berg, a student from Trumbull, testified at a Congressional hearing on civic education mentioning his participation in the ``We the People'' program. Russell said that civic education ``is the key to comprehending, appreciating and eventually participating in our democratic process.'' I could not think of a greater endorsement for civic education in our schools. Clearly, an understanding of history and civics is critical to our ability as a nation to continue as a thriving, functioning democracy. Our Constitution is a great document, but it is neither a simple nor self-implementing one. For it to work, it requires an educated populace, and a populace that understands that American citizenship brings with it both great benefits and great responsibility. If we want to ensure that our society remains faithful to democracy, and its underlying ideals, we must teach our children what those ideals are. ``We the People'' does just that. I applaud the achievements of all the students who qualified for this year's competition and all of those students who participated in local and State rounds of competition. We should all be proud that these students are learning and advocating the fundamental ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the leader yields, I thank the leader. This was a very gracious thing to do. We don't do it often enough. I commend the Democratic leader for taking out a few minutes to recognize people who make such a difference here every single day. The leader does this repeatedly, and I commend him for it. I associate myself with his remarks, and I wish to express our deep gratitude to Tom and his family for remarkable service to this country. I hope the people out there realize with all that happens within the view of a television camera, there are literally hundreds of people who make this government of ours, in spite of all of its inefficiencies, function remarkably well, and Tom certainly falls within that category. I thank the leader for taking a few minutes out to recognize him.

Mr. DODD. I recall that.

Mr. DODD. That is exactly what happened. He was also highly condemned for suggesting a number that now looks small in comparison to what the real pricetag is going to be.

Mr. DODD. That number I think is roughly correct. Most of those, by the way, have died since May 1 of last year.

Mr. DODD. I do recall that statement he made.

Mr. DODD. I think by anyone's estimation to declare that the mission was accomplished was a mistake.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may take 1 additional minute, my point is, I voted in favor of the authority. I believe it was the right thing to do. My concern is the June 30 date. I am concerned, and I realize there is a cost in changing it. We need to evaluate whether turning sovereignty over at that date is going to serve our interests. That was the sum and substance of my remarks. I appreciate the questions my colleague from Nevada raised. I made comments regarding holding rigidly to a date that could turn out to be a mistake.

Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Delaware. I know he has a comment he wants to make.

Mr. DODD. I do not know. I have not asked the Senator. No, it is not. It is a tribute to a constituent.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Arkansas for her very eloquent remarks. While she addressed them to four specific individuals from her State, she could have been speaking for any one of our States in talking about any one of the several hundred young men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq over the last year. I thank her for the eloquence of her remarks, the sense of passion and commitment she brought to them. I know she is joined by all of us-- certainly this Senator--in expressing deep sorrow for the loss of these Arkansans. We will certainly keep them in our thoughts and prayers. My remarks follow on a little bit with the remarks of my colleague from Arkansas. Later today or tomorrow, this body will be asked to vote on the confirmation of the first Ambassador to be sent to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, John Negroponte. Presently, he is our Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Negroponte has a very distinguished diplomatic career and is well suited to undertake what is surely going to be an extremely difficult and complex assignment, likely the most difficult one of his career, and certainly one of the most difficult in the history of the diplomatic corps, going back over the more than 200- year history of our Nation. While we have had our differences from time to time, I happen to believe John Negroponte is eminently qualified to take on this post. I thank him for his willingness to assume this responsibility, if he is confirmed, and I believe he will be. I also thank his family for their willingness and understanding that our country needs John Negroponte's service at this critical hour. During his nomination hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee, I stressed to Ambassador Negroponte that it would be terribly important for him to be candid with this Congress and the American people about what is happening in Iraq and what is not occurring. As we send our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters in harm's way, as we have just heard our colleague from Arkansas so eloquently describe, the American people have every right to expect and demand that U.S. officials are telling them the truth about what is happening in Iraq because if they lose faith in what our government is telling them, the United States will not be able to sustain the long and difficult task we have undertaken in this faraway country. Ambassador Negroponte acknowledged his obligation to keep us informed. I am very confident he will do so. While I intend to support Ambassador Negroponte's nomination when the Senate votes on this matter, I would not want that vote of support for him to be interpreted as an endorsement of the U.S. policy in Iraq, as it is presently being conducted. I am deeply troubled about the pace and direction of our policy in that country. The situation in Iraq could not be more volatile. Yet the Bush administration seems hell-bent to stick to the planned date of June 30 for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi Government. Given the recent upsurge in violence in places such as Falluja and Najaf, given the absence of an effective Iraqi security force to deal with such acts, and given the inadequate numbers of U.S. and foreign troops in that country to restore and maintain stability, I wonder--and I assume others do as well--whether we are setting ourselves up for a catastrophic failure by rigidly adhering to this deadline of June 30. This coming Saturday, May 1, will be the 1-year anniversary of President Bush's declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. Recent events make it painfully obvious that nothing could be further from the truth; rather, our mission may be just beginning. Certainly the return of sovereignty to Iraq is a laudable goal which I support, as I assume most all of my colleagues do. It should and must be our end game. But a transfer of authority will not in and of itself be a panacea for all the problems Iraq faces. Moreover, if we do it prematurely, it could put our whole mission and the future of Iraq at risk. This has been obvious to many of us for some time. But the Bush administration continues to plunge forward with the hope and prayer that everything somehow will work out after June 30. It does so without any clear sign that Iraq is ready for us to turn over authority or its institutions are at all capable at this juncture of successfully taking on this incredible responsibility. In fact, I would argue that all the evidence before us suggests that Iraq is not ready and will not be ready in the coming 62 days. Ironically, in light of recent events, with each step closer to June 30 we seem to be taking a step back in terms of our readiness to hand over control to the interim transitional Iraqi Government. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held three consecutive hearings on the situation in Iraq. I commend Senator Lugar and Senator Biden for holding the hearings. On Tuesday, the committee considered the nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte to be the first Ambassador to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Many questions were explored in the course of those hearings. Frankly, with respect to many of those questions, there were no or very few clear answers. However, we did receive some very excellent testimony from expert witnesses with very different backgrounds--from the U.S. military, from academia, from policing experience, and counterterrorism. Despite their different expertise, all of the witnesses were in agreement on one thing: that is, a major course correction with respect to U.S. efforts in Iraq is badly needed, and needed immediately. I have come to a very similar conclusion. Let me be clear. This need for a correction in our policy is not because our men and women in uniform have somehow failed to do their jobs. Quite the contrary, these men and women have performed every task that has been asked of them with the highest degree of professionalism, patriotism, and heroism. Let there be no doubt about that in the mind of any single American. But it is now more than 1 year after the end of major combat, and arguably the dangers to our troops have never been greater 1 year later. Why then are our troops in so much danger? I believe the answer, unfortunately, is quite simple. We have failed to craft and implement an effective stabilization plan for the nation of Iraq. This is not the fault of those in uniform; rather, it is the responsibility of top civilian officials in the Department of Defense and the White House who from the very beginning ignored--in fact, scoffed at and thwarted-- recommendations from leading uniformed officers, including GEN Eric Shinseki, that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to complete our mission in Iraq. In retrospect, it certainly seems that General Shinseki's judgment was right on the mark. More recently, military experts have concluded that we are likely, at least in the short term, to need an additional 50,000 U.S. troops if we are going to be able to secure the peace in that country. We are also going to need a similar number from our European allies in NATO, and we need these reinforcements soon before events spin even further out of control than they already have. Indeed, I wonder if last March we had sent a larger number of troops to Iraq--and had broad international participation--whether we would now be facing the same unacceptable lack of security throughout that country. I also wonder what effect increased security in Iraq would have had with respect to Iraqis' tolerance of a U.S. military presence in their country. Unfortunately, this lack of security has been evident from the earliest days of the conflict, when it first became apparent that the administration had not paid sufficient attention to the security needs of Iraq. Museums were looted. Ordinary civilians took up arms to guard their neighborhoods. Lawlessness prevailed throughout much of the country. Most importantly, in that short period of time, we lost the confidence of the Iraqi people. This isn't simply my observation. I was told very directly by an Iraqi during my trip to the nation back in December, well before the recent flareup in violence over the last several weeks--this Iraqi citizen is a Shiite, a moderate, a forward-looking individual. He very frankly told me that the lawlessness which followed the war negatively impacted Iraqis' confidence as to the intentions, preparedness, and capabilities of coalition forces to create a safe and secure Iraq. His contention was reinforced by Hasan Zirkani, who in November 2003 listed the lack of law and order, rampant unemployment, and the lack of basic services as sources of Shiite unrest. I would note that Mr. Zirkani is a Shiite cleric who supports Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical leader who commands the loyalty of the group responsible for much of the recent violence and unrest in Iraq. I also point to a February 2004 nationwide poll in Iraq, which showed that 64 percent of the Iraqi people consider regaining public security as their ``first priority'' over the next 12 months. Disturbingly, the Bush administration has attempted to make up for its lack of security preparation in the same reactive and hasty manner as much of the planning for post-war Iraq was carried out. One example of this has been the assembling of the various Iraqi security forces, a process which most experts agree was done far too quickly, with little or no training, and with inadequate vetting. We all witnessed the consequences of these rushed activities during the recent upsurge in violence, when Iraqi forces collapsed in the face of armed resistance. Insecurity in Iraq has also affected the ability of U.S. and foreign NGOs to perform the necessary humanitarian and reconstruction duties that would help them turn around the mood in the Iraqi streets. Unfortunately, due to the lack of security, many are unwilling or unable to operate in that country. In many places, reconstruction activities have come to a screeching halt. Contractors sit in hotel lobbies in Kuwait and Jordan, waiting for order to be restored so they can return to their projects. The administration says we are on course for June 30. I ask: What is that course? Where is all this leading? One thing is clear: From the very beginning, the Bush administration has done an inadequate job of preparing for the peace in Iraq. It has attempted to fix problems in shortsighted, often haphazard ways. It has only begrudgingly moved to adapt to the resulting strategic realities on the ground. That is why I believe it is fair and responsible to question the administration's plans as they relate to the upcoming June 30 deadline. How much more complex will this situation be if we try to stand up an Iraqi authority prematurely--if we stubbornly adhere to this date? What happens if that authority crumbles? I don't underestimate the problem of delaying the turnover. Clearly, if U.N. Special Envoy Brahimi were to announce that the turnover on June 30 is impossible, that would make our choice much easier. But we must recognize that the situation in Iraq is incredibly fragile. If this effort to build a stable and democratic Iraq is to succeed, it is going to need enormous international support. That support will not be forthcoming if the interim government in Iraq is not perceived as legitimate--both by the Iraqi people and the international community. I emphasize again that I understand there will be a cost by delaying the June 30 date. My point is that whatever that cost is, the cost of adhering to that date, sticking to it prematurely I think would be far more precarious than whatever damage may be associated with delaying the date beyond the June 30 date. Indeed, for all the difficulties in delaying the turnover of authority in Iraq, they pale in comparison, in my view, to going forward and seeing the situation irreversibly spiral downward. Equally troubling is that the administration is now saying that our handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30 will be ``limited.'' Mr. President, I don't quite understand what that means. I suspect the Iraqi people don't either. The law of administration for the state of Iraq, the so-called transitional law, which was drafted and approved earlier this year, calls for the establishment of a ``fully sovereign Iraqi interim government.'' Now it would appear that a yet-to-be-negotiated annex to that transitional law is going to spell out the limits of Iraq's sovereignty after June 30. Of course, nobody yet knows what that annex is going to look like--what concessions the administration will have to make to get the various Iraqi factions to sign off on the individuals who will make up the interim government, or whether those concessions, made in haste, in the long run will undermine our goal of a fully independent and democratic Iraq. I don't pretend to have all the answers with respect to what needs to be done before sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqi people. But I will say that the rapidly deteriorating security situation, combined with the lack of legitimacy for the U.S. presence in Iraq, has created conflicting pressures on the administration with respect to the June 30 deadline. Administration officials assert if we hand over authority to the Iraqis on schedule, the U.S. presence in that country will become less controversial. I disagree. The way to enhance U.S. legitimacy is to get the security situation turned around. That isn't going to happen by simply declaring Iraq a sovereign nation on July 1; it is only going to happen with a carefully planned and implemented stabilization program. That stabilization program will require more troops on the ground-- our troops and troops from other nations sanctioned by a clear U.N. mandate. Whether that can be accomplished by June 30 remains to be seen. I think it is very unlikely. As I mentioned earlier, we are only 62 days away from the turnover date. Yet, we still don't know who we are turning that authority over to. We don't know whether the individuals to be chosen by a U.N. special envoy will be acceptable to the Iraqi people. What we do know is that virtually every day more Americans and more Iraqis are dying. Recent events have forced the Bush administration to acknowledge some of these realities. I do not think we should dismiss out of hand that a course correction may be called for that makes the primary focus of our efforts security; or that we put off, for a time, the standing up of an unelected interim government. That would also give us additional time to make sure that when authority is transferred, it is transferred to a body that has legitimacy in the eyes of the international community and the Iraqi people. To help do this, we need to go to the U.N. and NATO before turning over authority, not after. The U.N. and NATO would be invaluable partners in tackling a task never before attempted from the outside: converting dictatorship into democracy. It would infuse our efforts with much-needed legitimacy. There are roughly 9 weeks left before June 30. In the interim, a lot could be accomplished in Iraq that might make the turnover of sovereignty possible on the timetable the administration has laid out. We could have achieved, before that date, a clear and concrete U.N. mandate for nation building in Iraq. We could have a secured commitment for a significant NATO troop deployment in that nation. We could have deployed additional troops to address the security challenges of a growing insurgency movement--including troops from governments in the region. But we have not achieved any of those things yet. We need to be honest about that. Mr. President, now is the time for a careful, informed debate in America about U.S. policy in Iraq, especially about the wisdom of our set deadlines--the pros and cons of moving forward as planned. After that debate, as June 30 draws nearer, we may in fact determine that sufficient progress has been made to go ahead as planned with the turnover of sovereignty. That may in fact be the right thing to do. But if on balance we conclude it is not, we in Congress need to say so publicly and on a bipartisan basis. The Bush administration needs to do so as well. Then we need to act accordingly. Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, recently sent an e-mail to some of his friends concerning the situation in Iraq. It was printed in the Washington Post about 2 weeks ago. He concluded with these comments: Military triumph does not necessarily equate to a political victory. Wars end only when the defeated accept defeat, not when the victor declares victory. A victory that does not produce peace can be much more costly than protracted confrontation that accomplishes deterrence. Arrogant daydreams that inspire military actions can become humiliating nightmares that produce political debacles. Before our daydreams for a free and democratic Iraq become our nightmares of a bottomless quagmire, let us do the sensible thing and at least honestly take a hard look at our decision to turn back authority to the Iraqi people on June 30--before we are sure that ``victory is going to produce peace.'' Once we have allowed the Iraqi people to govern themselves, it is going to be virtually impossible to take that sovereignty back without enormous loss of the blood and treasure of both of our peoples. That is something no one wants to see happen. I urge the administration to think about the wisdom of moving forward on the June 30 date.

Mr. DODD. I propound a unanimous consent request regarding time. My colleague from Arkansas wishes to speak for 10 minutes on a subject unrelated to the matter before the Senate. I would like to follow her, if I might accommodate my Senator from Arkansas, on a subject matter unrelated to the matter before the Senate. I clearly know the priority is to get amendments up here. If I may, I make such a request, that the Senator from Arkansas be recognized for 10 minutes, and following her remarks I be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on a matter unrelated to the subject matter before the Senate.

Mr. DODD. He is gone. He retired. He was not fired. Clearly, the message was quite clear that he had stepped out of line by saying what he thought from a military standpoint--he had a distinguished career of many years in military service--that in order to be successful, that number of troops was necessary. He was, in a sense, penalized, at the very least rhetorically for suggesting as such.

Mr. DODD. At the conclusion of my remarks, which are about 15 minutes off the subject matter of the bill, Senator Byrd of West Virginia be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. DODD. My remarks will be off the subject matter of the bill.